elephant

[rustinglass]

I got the R2 dvd, it has the original Alan Clarke film and it's fucking awesome, plus a comparison betwen both "elephants" by some french critic.

I really really encourage people to see Alan Clarke's elephant, it's unlike anything I've ever seen.

[Vile5]

At last, at last, at last!!!!!!!
Elephant came to Peru yipee!!!!!!!!!!!
and it's definitely the best movie i've watched this year, a WONDERFUL movie what proves that the essence of cinema is not dead!!! how powerful is the image god!
really i'm in love with this movie... MARVELOUS!

[Redlum]

I got the R2 dvd

Is that the french R2? Cause the English one has nothing and is 4:3, godammit.

[rustinglass]

I got the R2 dvd

Is that the french R2? Cause the English one has nothing and is 4:3, godammit.

No, it's the  Portuguese edition, but the french edition has all I've got plus 6 more trailers, and two more extra features.

the film is in 16:9, which is very confusing because I believe it was shot in 4:3

[Jeremy Blackman]

Does anybody know what camera this is? (from the DVD documentary)

[Ghostboy]

Looks like one of those little handheld one-chips like the Canon ZR10 or whatever it was called, with a 35mm lens mount attached to the front (plus the lens, which is probably worth at least six times the amount of the camera).

[mutinyco]

Arri adapter with a Zeiss...

[Finn]

I found this in the Elephant message boards on IMDB.


MY SCHOOL SHOOTING

"I'm gonna get a 14 inch Custom made Pump-Action Shotgun, a custom made 1 and a half footb 20 MM CAR, about 30 4 inch Pipebombs strapped around my waist, and a cut out back-pack. In the back-[ack will be a small propane bomb, the second back-pack I have will contain some ammo and food. I will also have a duffel bag, containing the Carbine.
I will also have a protective vest, the protective vest, shotgun, and pipebombs will be hidden under a jacket(they will all be by my torso) during Lunch, I will place the Propane bomb in the cafeteria, pretending its one of my friends backpacks(the fabric seperrating each compartment will be cut- out, so the propane bomb will fit.) As soon as the propane bomb explodes, I will cover one of the exits to the cafeteria, 2 others will cover all other exits ( there are only 3 exits to the cafeteria) and fire with a drum magezine from our Carbines. after killing most of the people in the cafeteria, we will go up the second pair of north entrance stairs, and get to either side of the library, covering each exit. Then we will move into the library and kill whom we which.
After words, 2 of my companions will move to the bottom floor, throwing pipe bombs in every other room they come by, as I and another companion cover the library. Then we will vice varsa, only me and my other companion will do the top floor, Afterwords we will cut off peoples faces shoot at the police, take the faces back, pretend we're victims and escape."


That's pretty f*cked up...

[Gold Trumpet]

I'm glad this thread was updated. Looking back, I'm very happy with my stance on the film though I think I could have been clearer at times. I wonder if JB would admit that my dissent to the film goes beyond me saying its "pointless" as he said every critic of the film only did. But, I'd also like to reply [again] to the initial criticism of my own review.

Two things:

Taking fewer characters in greater detail and personal feelings would have shifted the focus from the story to the "character piece". That wouldn't have suited this movie at all. In fact, THAT would have been offensive.

It wouldn't have been just a character piece at all. As all the best dramas do, to really delve into the life of one character is the best way to reveal life about everyone in that situation. As my situation in High School taught me, the problems of one truly are the problems of everyone. The details just may be a little different. This film is a mere focus of the difference of details between everyone.

Thats the genius of Antonioni. His films of the early 60s were so personal and close to the subjects that he dug at truths that were not truthful to just the characters, but truthful to all of us. Most critics say as he started making films in Britain and the United States, he began to explore Hollywood storylines more and settled with his art. His objectification was still there, but yet there never was the same depth of truth.

Also, you can't get upset about the "superficial stereotypes", because every high school is made up of them. There's the Ugly Loner Girl, the Artsy Guy, the Jock With The Hot Girlfriend, etc. Face it, you can't make a high school movie without embracing this.

There's one thing to learn from feminist literature: even though society tells us of a great divide between men and women, there truthfully is more difference between women and other women then there are between men and women. Thats a stereotype a lot of people believe in and I honestly believe the generalizations of high school cliques in being true dividers of who people are are also just stereotypes that have little truth to them. Isn't everyone's problem in high school finding acceptance with friends and finally finding out who they are? People think this is just the problem of the under priveleged in high school, but Jocks and cheer leaders aren't born to status, but forged. Underneath it all everyone had very similiar problems.

[socketlevel]

There's one thing to learn from feminist literature: even though society tells us of a great divide between men and women, there truthfully is more difference between women and other women then there are between men and women. Thats a stereotype a lot of people believe in and I honestly believe the generalizations of high school cliques in being true dividers of who people are are also just stereotypes that have little truth to them. Isn't everyone's problem in high school finding acceptance with friends and finally finding out who they are? People think this is just the problem of the under priveleged in high school, but Jocks and cheer leaders aren't born to status, but forged. Underneath it all everyone had very similiar problems.

i agree, it's insecurity, the universal reason why people gravitate toward each other and put boundaries on how they want to be perceived (i.e. fashion, taste, political and social views... etc).  i think it also has to do with where you live.  i grew up in a small city of about 200, 000 people (and i don't know if that's a factor, please give me insight on where you guys grew up) and the high schools i went to there wasn't as much of a dividing line.  sure we had jocks and goths and skaters and punks and all the other cliques but it wasn't so segregated.  in the school's smoking section you'd see all these people smoking and talking to each other, even with the teachers.  at that time whenever i'd see a film that depicted high school life it would show these different cliques as very segregational to each other (like varsity blues, can't buy me love, breakfast club etc.).   i always thought that was a stupid movie stereotype, but then i talked to people who lived in bigger cities like Toronto, Dallas, and Austin and they told me stories of stuff i only thought existed in these films.

when i moved to a bigger city later in life, i understood what they were talking about, it did seem like people needed to hide behind their clique and not look outside the box.  now i'm not saying this was the case with everyone, but the tendency seemed to be a little more in the hollywood fashion.

in the area of being physically attractive, it's the hard truth that good-looking people get away with more, even with the high school example set out by elephant.  if you're good-looking (and not a total douchebag or social leaper) you would get the opposite sex attracted to you.  and if you're "ugly" there is a bigger chance that you would be a loner.

if you think i'm horribly wrong write back and tell me what you think.  like i said, this has just been my experience.


-sl-

[Gold Trumpet]

I'm jumping to an old topic and also seemingly ignoring an old reply (look above) but in light of recent conversations, I'm making a small comment on this film. It isn't to look I am above small glib comments and am rubbing my thoughts in. That may be the impression but I really got curious to restate my opinion. I think I dug at some new ideas.

But, to indulge myself...I believe Van Sant with Elephant was making a film that indulged in realism and had little thought behind it. The achievement of Elephant is that he gives a massacre a clinical tone I'd never seen before in movies. The problem is that his process to achieve this is so obvious. Robert Bresson, in the 50s, played with strict realism in detailing the bare facts, like in A Man Escaped. It's just as he developed, he started to mix his stories to include greater thought and ideas. The allegory in Au Hasard Balthazar would fit that description.

Van Sant, operating on the barest and grimmest vision, offers a straightforward Bresson throw back that captures the filmmaker at the beginning of his greatness and his ideas. There is no mystery to the filmmaking of Elephant. It is obvious what he does to achieve his effect. He achieves his tone quite easily and because of the implication of Columbine at the time, makes the effect of the ending work much better. United 93 had a similar shocking nature with 9/11, but had detailed filmmaking that was more of a compliment to the story. Paul Greengrass was also improving from the poor and disjointed filmmaking in Bourne Supremacy.

Van Sant is just continuing his superficial art cinema. His remake of Psycho was based on the idea that colorizing the original would yeild new sensations. That idea should have stayed in the classroom. Elephant is the "cinematic" vision of a Columbine esque massacre realized. It would have been a bigger deal in the 1960s. Now it does little but grab at old ideas of purity in cinema that were vogue only for a time.

[Pedro]

I remember liking the film when I saw it, but I really agree with what you're saying, especially about how self-conscious and obvious it feels.  I thought the overall tone of the film was excellent, but once again, the means to achieve this tone are overbearing in their intentions.  (did that make sense?)

[pete]

holy fuck, how come nobody agreed with me when I said the same thing like 40 years ago.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

As a collective, we're more skeptical of things you say.

[tpfkabi]

i'm really behind on this one, but finally saw it (using a free rental promotion by my local video store).

nothing eloquent to add or anything, but for whatever reason this film is really sticking with me. i've already watched it twice and will watch it a third time finally hearing the 5.1 soundtrack. it's hard to believe that Van Sant originally envisioned this in black and white because i love the colors in the film. the Kubrick influence is pretty telling with the first shot sans titles, it reminds me of The Shining titles with the car being filmed from behind from helicopter.

of course seeing this, i have been reading up on Columbine. i had forgotten just how demented these guys were. to even think of multiple timed bombings in the fashion they did is just insane.

my biggest wonder is how much longer the end scene went beyond the final cut to end the film - if there were two shots for the victims and then a suicide shot? i guess leaving it open implies that violence will never go away, but i would like to hear Van Sant's ideas on why he cut there if they are available anywhere.